Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online: www.dailyemerald.com
Tuesday, October 7, 2003
Oregon Daily Emerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor:
Jan Tobias Montiy
Editorial Editor
Travis Willse
EDITORIAL
Gender-biased
Saferide policy
violates rights
During the summer; the Office of Civil Rights notified co
ordinators of the University's long-running Project Saferide
that they would need to restructure the program or shut it
down. The OCR, a Department of Education agency whose
mission is to "ensure equal access to education and to pro
mote education excellence throughout the nation through
vigorous enforcement of civil rights," said that because the
program receives federal funding, yet serves only women, it
violates provisions ofTitle IX of the Education Amendments
of 1972.
To preserve the valuable transport service, the project will
shortly merge with Night Ride — a program established in
2001 as a unisex counterpart to Saferide — forming the new
"Assault Prevention Shuttle" service. However, our biggest
complaint is: Why didn't this happen sooner?
'Hiere are several legal and philosophical problems with a
public university offering sex-dependent benefits or services
without offering effectively equal services to the other sex. The
most glaring is the violation of regulations dted by the OCR;
Tide IX states that, barring certain exceptions that don't apply
to programs like Project Saferide, "No person in the United
States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participa
tion in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimi
nation under any education program or activity receiving Fed
eral financial assistance."
So, Saferide is illegal, for the same reason that offering a dis
proportionately small number of female sports at a state
school is illegal.
But the program's very existence creates a more subtle, fiscal
problem. As of spring 2003, 18,421 students attend the Uni
versity; last spring, the ASUO Programs Finance Committee
allocated $42,619. Thus, every male student would have paid
about $2.31 for a service offered only to females. This may
work out to a small amount per capita, but collectively, about
8,500 men across campus paid nearly $20,000 for a program
they couldn't use.
Finally, the very reason for Saferide's gender restriction is
unfair. According to Saferide's Web site, the program "remains
a safe space for women who fear sexual assault and are un
comfortable riding with men." That one person fears a group
of people is a poor justification to limit that group's rights. If a
hypothetical white person had a negative experience with a
Hispanic person and isn't comfortable, say, with sharing a ve
hicle with any I lispanic person, that's hardly a reason to limit
a University transportation program to whites, and is more
over unfair to potential Hispanic riders. Furthermore, charg
ing all I lispanics at the University to help pay for such a service
would be absurd. Ukewise, disqualifying men from riding
with Saferide is unfair to them, particularly those men who
have lived a life respecting and avoiding harassment of
women.
Now, surely the framers of the Constitution, the Fourteenth
Amendment and Title IX didn't intend for women to feel un
comfortable, or worse, subject them to dangerous situations.
But combining Night Ride and Saferide into a single program
protects men ancfwomen alike from assault in a way that is
fiscally fair, constitutionally cogent and socially responsible.
EDITORIAL POLICY
This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald
editorial board. Responses can be sent to letters
©dailyemerald.com. Letters to the editor and guest
commentaries are encouraged. Letters are limited
to 250 words and guest commentaries to 550 words.
Authors are limited to one submission per calendar
month. Submission must include phone number and
address for verification. The Emerald reserves the right
to edit for space, grammar and style.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Brad Schmidt Aimee Rudin
Editor in Chief Freelance Editor
Jan Tobias Montry Ayisha Yahya
Managing Editor News Editor
Travis Wills©
Editorial Editor
COLORBLIND POLITICS
Today, as Californians flock to the polls,
the question on everybody's mind is: Who
will get more votes in the recall election,
the pom star or the pomographer?
(Both are 500-1 shots in Las Vegas.
Seriously.)
In addition to the recall, Californians will
be voting on Proposition 54, a serious pro
posal with serious consequences. Dubbed
the Racial Privacy Initiative, it would, if
passed, forbid the government from collect
ing data on race. It reads, in part:
"The state shall not classify any individ
ual by race, ethnicity, color or national ori
gin in the operation of public education,
public contracting or public employment."
Proposition 54 is a "Don't ask, don't
tell" policy for minorities. Opponents call
it statistical ethnic cleansing. Supporters say
that race — like sexual orientation — is no
business of the government and that this
initiative represents a major step forward in
America's quest for a color-blind society.
I agree, but the initiative does not go
nearly far enough in protecting racial pri
vacy. Government employees and school
administrators would still be able to figure
out an applicant's ethnicity and use it
against them. If Oregonians are interested
in protecting their racial privacy, I would
suggest they adopt a proposition similar to
Proposition 54 with the following impor
tant additions:
1. 'The state shall not classify any indi
vidual by name..."
With a last name like Jagernauth, my
race is exposed every time I sign on the
dotted line, whether the government col
lects racial data or not. And according to a
recent study, that could cost me my next
job. When researchers from the University
of Chicago and MIT responded to help
wanted ads using fictitious resumes, they
found that the resumes with white-sound
ing names (like Emily) were 50 percent
more likely to get a call back than the ones
with black-sounding names (like Lakisha).
Moreover, giving the fictional black appli
cants a higher quality resume did not sig-'
nificantly improve their chances of land
ing an interview.
2. "The state shall not classify any indi
vidual by home address or high school..."
If America were no longer racially segre
gated, then it wouldn't matter if the govern
ment knew where we lived. But as it is, pro
viding the state with even the most vague
geographical information could potential
ly compromise your racial privacy. Ninety
five of the 96 black-majority counties in
America are in the South, where over half of
the black population still lives. A random
person from Gary, Ind., or Detroit has an 85
percent chance of being black. Conversely, a
random person from the state of Idaho has
a less-than-1-percent chance of being black.
David Jagernauth
Critical mass
In our schools, racial segregation today is
greater than it was before Brown v. Board of
Education, according to Harvard sociologist
Gary Orfield. Sixty-three percent of white
students go to schools that are racially ex
clusive (that is, the schools are at least 90
percent white). Forty percent of public
schools in large cities in America are con
sidered "intensely segregated." Information
about our past education must be kept
from the government in order to protect
our racial privacy.
3. "The state shall not classify any indi
vidual by employment history..."
Let's do some role-playing: Say you are a
government employer and you see a re
sume that lists U.S. senator as a previous oc
cupation. Considering that there were only
two black U.S. senators in the entire 20th
Century (Carol Moseley-Braun and Ed
ward Brooke), the same number as in the
19 th Century, what would you assume
about the applicant's race? Now say the ap- *
plicant was a state governor. There was only
one black governor in the entire 20th Cen
tury (Douglas Wilder of Virginia) — again, **
the same number as in the 19th Century
Or maybe the applicant was President of
the United States of... Well, you get it.
4. "The state shall not conduct inter
views in-person or over the phone ..."
Face-to-face interviews should be
banned for obvious reasons, but now we
know that phone interviews are danger
ous to our racial privacy as well. A study
by John Baugh, a linguistics professor at
Stanford University, shows that most
Americans can accurately identify the
race of a speaker just from the word "hel
lo." Linguistic racial profiling is a grow
ing problem, especially in the housing,
banking and insurance industries,
watchdog groups say. TWB (talking while
black) might cost you your next job, loan
or home unless we demand that all inter
views be conducted exclusively though e
mail.
Conclusion
Until we pass laws banning all infor
mation on resumes and college applica
tions except for our Social Security num
ber, GPA and e-mail address, our racial
privacy will always be threatened. Color
blindness is an admirable goal, but we
will not truly be "one nation, indivisible"
until we have become color-hard-of hear
ing as well. The terrible blight of racism
that has stained our great country will not
be completely cleansed until we all suffer
from color-stuffy noses, so that we cannot
color-smell or color-taste. Only then can
we legitimately say that America stands
for liberty and justice for all.
Contact the columnist
at davidjagemauth@dailyemerald.com.
His opinions do not necessarily represent
those of the Emerald.